Touching the ball on ceremonial restart?

[wjarrettc]

Need a ref's opinion on this...happened tonight in a USL-1 match.

Ceremonial restart for a free kick 19 yards from goal. Ref sets wall and walks back to get in position.

As he walks back, the team taking the free kick positions one player over the ball and one about 2 yards away. Player standing over the ball plants his foot firmly on the ball and leaves it there, touching the ball.

Ref takes up position and blows the whistle. Kicking team doesn't move a muscle but player's foot is still firmly planted on the ball. Defense rushes the ball and takes it way and breaks up field. Ref blows the play dead and sends off one of the two players that rushed ball for his second yellow, apparently for delay of restart or failure to retire.

I was under the opinion that a foot planted on the ball was enough to put the ball in play. i know this is the case for an untouched ball being touched after the whistle, but what is the scenario when the player's foot is already on the ball when the whistle is blown?

Should the ref have even blown the whistle with the offense touching the ball?

I think this was a horrible sending off by such a high-level ref in such an ambiguous situation, but would like to know what the experts think.

[DadOf6]

Need a ref's opinion on this...happened tonight in a USL-1 match.

Ceremonial restart for a free kick 19 yards from goal. Ref sets wall and walks back to get in position.

As he walks back, the team taking the free kick positions one player over the ball and one about 2 yards away. Player standing over the ball plants his foot firmly on the ball and leaves it there, touching the ball.

Ref takes up position and blows the whistle. Kicking team doesn't move a muscle but player's foot is still firmly planted on the ball. Defense rushes the ball and takes it way and breaks up field. Ref blows the play dead and sends off one of the two players that rushed ball for his second yellow, apparently for delay of restart or failure to retire.

I was under the opinion that a foot planted on the ball was enough to put the ball in play. i know this is the case for an untouched ball being touched after the whistle, but what is the scenario when the player's foot is already on the ball when the whistle is blown?

Should the ref have even blown the whistle with the offense touching the ball?

I think this was a horrible sending off by such a high-level ref in such an ambiguous situation, but would like to know what the experts think.

A free kick must be kicked and move. Kick means moving the foot and leg in a kicking motion. Move means to change posiyion from one place to another. There is no requirement on how far the ball must move. Wobbling in place is not good enough.

The players were guilty of failing to respect the distance and a caution can be shown. To say it was a good or bad decision requires more information on the game.

[campton]

I'd say call it back. No bookings. Knowing LOTG decently well, i understand why he cautioned, but still. They gave the 10, set a wall, then played at the wrong time. Obviously a misunderstanding.

[Alberto]

For the restart to take place the ball must be kicked. It is not enough for a player to touch the ball. There must be some perceptible movement of the ball for the ball to have been put in play. The referee has every right to caution. I am sure more than one player rushed the ball. It would have made sense to caution the other player without the card. Campton, there is no misunderstanding here. The defense moved early.

[wjarrettc]

My problem with this interpretation is there is absolutely no way physically possible that a soccer player can stand over a ball with his foot planted firmly on the ball and not move.

It may be his intention to not move, but the act of balancing on one foot, by a tired athlete, is just physically impossible to stand rock solid still. There is always, always motion, even if it is small. Ever try the balance board for the Wii? You'll know what I mean.

So now we get into interpretation of how much motion is required. Since we know that the ball doesn't have to physically move from the spot it is sitting on to start play, we start literally splitting hairs over degrees of motion.

It seems to me that the simple answer here is that the ref should not blow the whistle while the player is touching the ball. Then any new touch of the ball signals the start of play.

If he's going to card here (which I disagree with), why not do the sensible thing and card the other player that rushed the ball and not send anyone off. That's like walking up to a wall that's failing to retire and picking the one guy out of it that already has been booked and sending him off.

Ref ruined what up to that point had been a nice end-to-end game, imo.

[wjarrettc]

From the USSF Advice to Referees, read the last sentence closely

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/2661000468_e29285d50f_o.png

[Gary V]

I'm not sure which version of Advice you quoted, because I can't read the tiny print. Here's the current (2007) version, second paragraph of 13.5, which was new in 2007:
When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being "kicked" does not, for example, include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot. Being "moved" does not, for example, include the ball simply quivering, trembling, or shaking as a result of light contact. The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not "kicked and moved" based on the spirit and flow of the match. In all events, the ball must be put into play properly.
Note the two requirements defined here. While the ball may have moved slightly, did it go from one place to another? Unlikely - more likely it would ahve quivered, trembled or shook which is not defined as moved. But the bigger issue is that there was no kick. Resting a foot on the ball is not a kick.

The referee might have been more judicious in deciding which player to caution, and picked one who hadn't already been cautioned before. But maybe that player was the first off the line by a clear margin, and the ref had little choice.

[wjarrettc]

Thanks for the update ATR. I couldn't find it online just now.

Seems to be a clearly confusing situation and the ref should have applied a little more common sense.

[PVancouver]

I don't see a need to caution either player unless the tactic was already well known in the league or in the match and the players should already be aware of it or had already been warned. Clearly many players might reasonably believe that once the whistle blew, with the kicker contacting the ball with his foot, that it was legal and appropriate for the defenders to charge, despite the adult age level of the players. Even referees must rely on a relatively obscure, recently changed intepretations from the Advice to Referees know for sure how to treat such restart.


wjarrettc's last sentence says:

"Likewise, referees should not unfairly punish "failing to respect the required distance" when an opponent was clearly confused by a touch and movement of the ball which was not a restart."

and it remains a part of ATR 13.5 BALL IN PLAY.

[wjarrettc]

Here's a video of the incident.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1493047335WmGBd4

As I watch this over and over, it seems clear to me after multiple viewings that the Minnesota player has not "moved" the ball. However, I still believe, in the heat of the battle, a player rushing the ball in that situation should not have been booked but rather warned. It's clear they were confused by their two or three starts and hesitations before finally rushing the ball.

[PVancouver]

Heat of the battle?

The referee should have stopped play and made the situation a little more clear after the first or second attempt to rush the ball.

Or the opponents should have listened to the referee, assuming he made himself clear.

The kick was an indirect which explains the player on the ball.

[NW Referee]

Here's a video of the incident.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1493047335WmGBd4

As I watch this over and over, it seems clear to me after multiple viewings that the Minnesota player has not "moved" the ball. However, I still believe, in the heat of the battle, a player rushing the ball in that situation should not have been booked but rather warned. It's clear they were confused by their two or three starts and hesitations before finally rushing the ball.

Too often referees "allow" players to be selectively stupid. For instance, players pretend they don't understand 10 yards and that they don't know they are supposed to give it without being asked to.

In this instance the Carolina players rush the ball when it has not been kicked and moved. Yes it has been touched but you are splitting very tiny hairs by believing this means it has been kicked. If this happened on a corner kick would you believe it had been kicked? I don't think so.

The player that had the Caution already was not smart to rush the ball. To suggest that it is the referees "fault" for him being sent off suggests that you think the player isn't responsible for controlling himself and that somehow the referee needs to give him a break.

Rather than blame the referee, the blame is solely on the player. It's like speeding while driving in front of a police car, it's just not smart. I'm glad the referee had the courage to do what he did.

[PVancouver]

If this happened on a corner kick would you believe it had been kicked? I don't think so.

Maybe not the best example.

Two years ago (2005), the ATR said:

17.3 BALL IN PLAY FROM A CORNER KICK
The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves. The act of kicking the ball includes any play of the ball with the foot, and only minimal movement is needed to meet the requirement.

Two years before that (2003), the ATR said:

13.6 BALL IN PLAY
The ball is in play (able to be played by an attacker other than the kicker or by an opponent) when it has been kicked and moved. The distance to be moved is minimal and the "kick" need only be a touch of the ball with the foot.

The current interpretations are very recent (relatively speaking).

[NW Referee]

Maybe not the best example.

Two years ago (2005), the ATR said:

17.3 BALL IN PLAY FROM A CORNER KICK
The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves. The act of kicking the ball includes any play of the ball with the foot, and only minimal movement is needed to meet the requirement.

Two years before that (2003), the ATR said:

13.6 BALL IN PLAY
The ball is in play (able to be played by an attacker other than the kicker or by an opponent) when it has been kicked and moved. The distance to be moved is minimal and the "kick" need only be a touch of the ball with the foot.

The current interpretations are very recent (relatively speaking).


Actually, these old excerpts from ATR do support how most referees interpret things. They talk about kicking the ball, not touching it. Keep in mind that FIFA and the rest of the world do not care what the ATR says (with maybe the exception of the offside situation with the defender off the field and the goal by Holland in the Euro Cup).

And speaking of splitting hairs.... You take a minor remark and choose to focus on it and ignore the main focus of my response.

[wjarrettc]

The player that had the Caution already was not smart to rush the ball. To suggest that it is the referees "fault" for him being sent off suggests that you think the player isn't responsible for controlling himself and that somehow the referee needs to give him a break.

Rather than blame the referee, the blame is solely on the player. It's like speeding while driving in front of a police car, it's just not smart. I'm glad the referee had the courage to do what he did.

The player the referee carded was the THIRD Carolina player to break the wall. Tell me how sending him off, over carding the FIRST or even the SECOND player to break the wall, is in any way applying the common sense and game control techniques that you would expect to find in someone reffing at the USL-1 level.

Neither the first or second players to break the wall had cards. The third player to break the wall had been booked 30 seconds earlier for dissent arguing the dangerous play call that lead to the indirect free kick.

To me, this feels like the ref "getting personal" with this particular player and I don't find it very professional.

[DerbyRam54]

The player the referee carded was the THIRD Carolina player to break the wall. Tell me how sending him off, over carding the FIRST or even the SECOND player to break the wall, is in any way applying the common sense and game control techniques that you would expect to find in someone reffing at the USL-1 level.

Neither the first or second players to break the wall had cards. The third player to break the wall had been booked 30 seconds earlier for dissent arguing the dangerous play call that lead to the indirect free kick.

To me, this feels like the ref "getting personal" with this particular player and I don't find it very professional.
We have before us just the video evidence. We have no way of knowing what the referee may have said to the players at any point in this incident, nor of knowing what any of the players may have said.
At face value, it may seem that the actions of the referee were harsh, but we are not in possession of all the facts, so it's perhaps unwise for us to second guess the official.
PVancouver has been on something of a crusade for clarity of late, and he has a point in that some of the smaller changes in interpretation are not well-understood outside of refereeing circles (some may say that are not entirely understood within those circles either :) ). Should USSF do a better job in communicating with coaches and players? Perhaps. Is anything stopping players and coaches from finding this information for themselves? Not that I can see. You may buy into a stereotype of players not being able to do that, but it should certainly come within the coach's job description of preparing his team to play the game.

[CalCard]

Thanks for the video... as referees, especially the high level ones, they are supposed to be current on all the latest interpretations that USSF provides. Since the update in 2007 requiring a 'kicking' motion, then that is what I would expect to see enforced.

The referee in this case chooses to ignore that, or thought it to be trifling. In either case, he should have observed the confusion and managed it better.

I'm aware of player tactics about playing 'dumb' to circumvent some laws and requirements, but the referees also are aparty to this behaviour.

Cautioning the player with an existing caution was dumb on both parts... the referee just got the player nearest to him, and the player knew what he was risking.

I'm sure we've all had situations similar to this... usually not on a stage that has video evidence to review and dissect.

[PVancouver]

The player the referee carded was the THIRD Carolina player to break the wall. Tell me how sending him off, over carding the FIRST or even the SECOND player to break the wall, is in any way applying the common sense and game control techniques that you would expect to find in someone reffing at the USL-1 level.

Neither the first or second players to break the wall had cards. The third player to break the wall had been booked 30 seconds earlier for dissent arguing the dangerous play call that lead to the indirect free kick.

To me, this feels like the ref "getting personal" with this particular player and I don't find it very professional.

Except the third player was the one that went almost all the way to the ball. The other two would go a little way and stop. It is actually kind of funny how both start running when the referee blows his whistle. #7 got braver and went all the way to the ball, encouraging one of his teammates with him. It is no surprise at all to me that this is the player that gets carded.

[PVancouver]

Thanks for the video... as referees, especially the high level ones, they are supposed to be current on all the latest interpretations that USSF provides. Since the update in 2007 requiring a 'kicking' motion, then that is what I would expect to see enforced.

The referee in this case chooses to ignore that, or thought it to be trifling. In either case, he should have observed the confusion and managed it better.

Well, the referee did wait to get his kick, and he did card for FRD, so I don't see how it can be claimed that he did not apply current interpretation.

The recent changes in the laws are more likely to be hidden from the players than top level referees.

Any situation that occurs rarely in a sport is bound to include a few clueless players.

[intechpc]

Alright, I'll say this, after watching the video, there's no doubt in my mind someone's getting cautioned if I'm that referee. Now we can't hear the on-filed conversations but it seems pretty clear that twice they were warned to stop and back up before the kick was taken and still they encroached.

As far as who got the caution, here's what I see in the video. The first two players off the line were standing still after the second warning. After they stopped moving, #7 who received the card decided to come charging out anyway (still before the kick was taken and after he had already relented once so was clearly aware of the referee's instrucitons). He is also the closest to the ball when the kick is actually taken. So his open defiance and continuation of the encroachment to only a few yards from the ball when it was kicked justifies the decision to caution him in my mind. Had this been the first caution of the match, no doubt in my mind he'd be the one getting it from anyone here.

Now, your friend Mr Nunez also didn't do himself any favors by immediately getting in the referee's face and arguing the stoppage. Also, I obviously wasn't there but my guess from his behavior prior to getting the caution and then after the caution is that he wasn't an angel prior to this free kick either. So couple all that together and that could very well be why he was given the card. It's not vendictive, but a referee using discretion to avoid the second yellow by giving it to someone else is not something that is required. Generally, a referee will do that to keep a player on the field who he feels still deserves to be on the field. If the referee gets the feeling a player is on his way to a second caution anyway, why would he afford him any leway? This isn't the referee being unprofessional or personal, it's the referee doing is job and identifying a player who has earned his removal from the game.

Sorry wjarrettc, you came here looking for an unbiased opinion but continue to let your own bias color your vision. Mr Nunez was foolish for not controlling himself. Getting booked for dissent then taking it upon himself to push the limits with the referee. I have no doubt his anger over the call is exactly what lead him to react the way he did. All the body language and everything in that video suggests a "screw this" type response in which he just goes after it and then gets after the referee again when the referee says no way. Next time maybe his teammates ought to help him get his head screwed on straight after his caution if they want to keep him in the game.